We are charged with coming up with a proposal that is: CONSISTENT; RATIONAL; PRINCIPLE-BASED. I'd like to tease out the principles that currently exist in the rules. Are those the principles we want to continue with? If so, are the rules in support of those principles? And if we want different principles, what might those be? Randall, 11/22/11

We are charged with coming up with a proposal that is: CONSISTENT; RATIONAL; PRINCIPLE-BASED. I'd like to tease out the principles that currently exist in the rules. Are those the principles we want to continue with? If so, are the rules in support of those principles? And if we want different principles, what might those be? Randall, 11/22/11

+

+

Immediately following are 5 topics to be discussed to help us prepare a proposal to be submitted to CC:DA in May 2012. Please discuss each topic in the area designated for discussion on that topic. Randall, 3/29/12

+

+

==Topic 1: Type 1 vs. Type 2==

+

+

What are the differences between these?

+

+

Note that Type 1 calls for subordinate entry without exception. But with Type 2, entry is subordinate if the parent is not somehow identified (e.g., "Public Relations Office" becomes "Seattle Art Museum. Public Relations Office"), but entry is direct if the parent is identified in some way (e.g., "ACS Office of Statistical Services" is entered directly).

+

+

Is there a need to continue the distinction, and if so, should it be clarified?

And of course any one body has the potential to be formulated in any of these ways, depending on how the name was presented in the resource.

+

+

==DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 1==

+

It's quite possible that I just am not looking in the right place, but I wasn't able to find examples in RDA with "Office" in Type 1, but did in Type 2. The LCPS for RDA also treats "Office" as Type 2. In any event, when looking over the examples Kevin gave of apparent Type 2 contradictions and inconsistencies, it simply doesn't make sense to me to treat "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" as Type 2 and "American Library Association. Committee on Accreditation" as Type 1. They are both committees, after all. I think it would be quite difficult to know for certain that "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" is the actual name of the committee. The actual name could very well be "Committee on Minority Concerns" but just shows up as "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" on the resource. It is also really hard (for me anyway) to come up with an example of an organization with the word "Office" in it that is a true stand-alone body; that is, not subordinate to another body. Take a look at n77013440. The heading "Office belge de l'économie et de l'agriculture" is a 110, with a 410 of "Belgium. $b Office belge de l'économie et de l'agriculture". Since "Belge" appears in the name of the office, it's a type 2 ... but it is [[still]] subordinate to a jurisdiction. Would it be such a bad thing to discontinue the distinction between "bodies that are always subordinate" and "bodies that are subordinate if the parent is not identified"? Type 1 and Type 2 bodies are all subordinate to a parent body of some sort. BM 4/2/2012

+

+

Sorry that I made a significant mistake in reading some of my notes. (I removed what had been the second sentence in the topic above, which talked about the word "office" being included in Type 1 in RDA; I was wrong...) But that still leaves the main question: What is the difference? To my mind, something that is "administratively subordinate" is by its very nature "part of another body". Or is there something I'm missing? While it is possible to have entirely independent bodies with names containing terms mentioned in either of these types (including "Office"), they are not very common, and no fiddling around with these rules would change the fact that those independent bodies would by necessity have their names entered directly! If we discontinue the distinction, and combine these two types, we would end up with something like the following names (examples under the word "but" in Type 2):

: United Methodist Church (U.S.). Board of Higher Education and Ministry. National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education

+

:: OR:

+

: United Methodist Church (U.S.). National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education

+

:: (not: National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education)

+

+

: University of Wisconsin--Madison. Campus Planning Committee

+

:: (not: UW-Madison Campus Planning Committee)

+

+

: King County (Wash.). Cultural Development Authority

+

:: (not: Cultural Development Authority of King County)

+

+

: Honolulu (Hawaii). Committee on Aging

+

:: (not: Honolulu Committee on Aging)

+

+

: Queensland. Parks and Wildlife Service

+

:: (not: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service)

+

+

: Ontario. Royal Commission on Education in Ontario

+

:: (not: Royal Commission on Education in Ontario)

+

+

: Snohomish County (Wash.). Office of Community Planning

+

:: (not: Snohomish County Office of Community Planning)

+

+

: United States. Census Bureau

+

:: (not: U.S. Census Bureau)

+

+

: Vancouver (B.C.). School Board

+

:: (not: Vancouver School Board)

+

+

Call me weird, but I like some of these a lot better (especially the government agency ones).

+

+

Does this go against the principle of representation? Do we want more subordinate entry, or less? Is it worth having more subordinate entry (thus violating the principle of representation) if that also gives us more apparent consistency? Please look at the discussion under the header "11.2.2.14 Type 6" below. Randall, 4/3/12; edited 4/5/12

+

+

Actually, Kevin, I like the examples you've given better than the originals, so I guess I'm weird too. :-) However, if the principle of representation is considered bedrock, then what you and I have been discussing would appear to run counter to that. If a resource has "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" on it, we probably shouldn't be gainsaying it ("is this REALLY the way this committee presents itself?"). I work with so many government agency names and congressional committees and subcommittees that are always subordinate bodies that I may well have a bit of a blind spot. I still don't think the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is always clearcut--what's the difference between "Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service" (no2002003983) and "Tasmania. Parks and Wildlife Service" (no2003021214)? How would one know that the Parks and Wildlife Service in Queensland has "Queensland" as an inherent part of the name but "Tasmania" is not an inherent part of its "Parks and Wildlife Service" name? I have no idea why these two very similar Australian bodies have been established the way they have. That's why my gut reaction is to perhaps impose a foolish consistency by making more entries subordinate. BM 4/10/12

+

+

==Topic 2: Principle of Continuity==

+

+

John Attig brought this up at Midwinter. For example, "Agricultural Experiment Station of Auburn University" vs. "Agricultural Experiment Station" and "Auburn University" appearing adjacent or on two lines, etc. Is this anything that we want to discuss? I don't know if this is really a "principle" but more of a "problem". Or, it's the "Principle of Taking the First Most Prominent Form You Find Even Though It's Totally Arbitrary Because the Body Doesn't Really See Any Difference In the Various Ways They Present Their Name".

+

+

==DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 2==

+

+

I tend to agree with this issue as being the "Principle of Taking the First Most Prominent Form You Find Even Though It's Totally Arbitrary Because the Body Doesn't Really See Any Difference In the Various Ways They Present Their Name". The difference in the way the name of the ag experiment station at Auburn looks in the two examples might just be due to someone in the university publications department thinking the name looked nicer split between two lines, or needing to save space by putting the name on one line, as opposed to thinking that the name should be the same format on all its publications. (Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.) BM 4/10/12

+

+

==Topic 3: How much should we be concerned with collocation?==

+

+

John Attig said that we probably still value collocation. But how much is desired? How much is possible? Should we rely primarily on variant access points to achieve collocation? (Hopefully with better systems...)

+

+

==DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 3==

+

While collocation can still be valuable, I don't know how much evidence there is that patrons browse catalog entries very often, especially for corporate body names. Variant access points could be a way to achieve collocation if the changes that this TF (and other TFs) have recommended mean that there is less collocation. BM 4/2/2012

+

+

Interesting point about the possibility that users don't browse headings very much. I wonder if that's because browseable headings typically aren't a feature of result sets for keyword searches? Let's look into the literature to see what's been written about in regard to corporate name headings and user search behavior. Even when keyword searching does give browseable headings, perhaps the ability to specify terms that show up regardless of their adjacency can allow for lists that are manageable enough that traditional hierarchical heading construction doesn't matter as much. Randall 4/5/12

+

+

We do not have access to Library Literature in any online databases here so I can't really do a literature search, and I don't know that there is time for that anyway. As a (totally unscientific) experiment, I searched our catalog using a very common query here--"what hearings do you have from the Senate Finance Committee [or any other committee] from 2009 [or any other date] to the present?" Doing a [[keyword search]] in the author field in our ILS of "senate finance committee" and limiting the date to 2009 to 2012 results in 52 hits--the majority are hearings, but some are committee prints. In any event, there is a manageable group to choose from, without having to know exactly how the committee name is constructed. However, [[browsing]] the author field for "senate finance committee" results in zero hits. In my experience, users (patrons and reference librarians) don't tend to think in hierarchies (United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance), and at least in our catalog, browsing by author means you have to know the exact way a name is constructed in order to get hits. Browsing a catalog by the name of a corporate body is a very poor way to find resources by the body in pretty much any catalog I have used even if I know the exact name of the body, because of the sheer number of records that come up in a catalog of any size. Again, completely unscientific but it's my experience. Unless I am proven wrong, I still believe that patrons do not browse catalogs by the name of corporate bodies, if for no other reason than they have no idea how the name is constructed. BM 4/10/12

+

+

I dinked around on Google and found an article in JASIS in 1996 entitled 'Why are online catalogs still hard to use?' by Christine L. Borgman. Here are a couple of quotes: "Formulating author and title queries is difficult because the searcher must have accurate information that matches the entry in the catalog or know how to identify alternative forms that might exists" (p. 496); "Searchers need to know whether they can enter the catalog only under the search terms corresponding to the first significant word in the access point or whether all words are searchable. If only the first word is searchable, searchers must be able to determine which word that might be ... determining the appropriate search terms for corporate authors is even more difficult" (p. 497). This article seems to bear out my thought that browsing author fields by corporate name is difficult for patrons, since they have no idea how the names are constructed so have no idea which word to put in the box first. BM 4/11/12

+

+

==Topic 4: Eliminating Type 6==

+

+

Discussion in Dallas showed strong supporting for the elimination of Type 6, although some people supporting it were not necessarily happy with all of the results. For example: "St. John's College Library". If this name needed to be distinguished from another St. John's College Library, what would be the qualifying element? Would it be the immediate parent body:

+

+

: St. John's College Library (St. John's College (University of Oxford))

+

+

Then there are things like "Meeting of ...", "Annual conference of ...", etc. Do we want to expand the scope of Type 1 and/or Type 2 to include such terms?

+

+

Is it possible that while eliminating Type 6 will both simplify things for the cataloger and get rid of some inconsistencies, we would really just be trading those old inconsistencies for new ones? (See the discussion under Type 1 vs. Type 2.)

+

+

==DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 4==

+

+

In the example given, it would seem to me that "Saint John's College Library (Saint John's College (University of Oxford))" would make sense, even if it might not look too elegant. I think that Type 6 is quite problematic and should be eliminated if possible, but I do recognize that it could create issues in the other types. I don't know that it is possible to eliminate all inconsistencies in these rules; Type 6, however, seems to cause the most difficulties in terms of heading construction and it would be nice not to have to contend with it. BM 4/11/12

+

+

==Topic 5: Religious subordinate bodies==

+

+

Bob Maxwell has advocated incorporating religious subordinate bodies into the generic guidelines. While this might be doable, I would like to see someone come up with an idea of how this might be accomplished. One thing I was struck by (and not in a positive way) was the lack of hierarchical consistency in 11.2.2.13-11.2.2.31. Essentially, this entire span of rules covers "subordinate and related bodies". To make more sense, the end of section 11.2.2 should be 11.2.2.12 (Transliteration); the next section would be 11.2.3 (Subordinate and Related Bodies), which would incorporate all of what is now in 11.2.2.13-11.2.2.31; and that section would be followed by 11.2.4 (Variant Name for the Corporate Body). I'm not sure of the status of 6JSC/ALA/2 (the proposal for revising 11.2.2.21 for heads of state) so I'm going to run this matter by John Attig to get his take on it. I don't think a total reworking like I suggest above is possible in our short time frame (we need to have a proposal by mid-May), but I think we can certainly take care of the initial thing we were wanting to do, which is streamline the generic and government subordinate bodies. I am convinced that other sections can (and should) be further streamlined and consolidated, including (and especially?) the religious officials; some of the guidelines say essentially the same thing, with the examples being the only substantive difference.

+

+

==DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 5==

+

(discuss...)

==11 Identifying Corporate Bodies==

==11 Identifying Corporate Bodies==

Latest revision as of 14:57, 11 April 2012

To enter your comments, click on link where you want to comment.

Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.

General Comments

We are charged with coming up with a proposal that is: CONSISTENT; RATIONAL; PRINCIPLE-BASED. I'd like to tease out the principles that currently exist in the rules. Are those the principles we want to continue with? If so, are the rules in support of those principles? And if we want different principles, what might those be? Randall, 11/22/11

Immediately following are 5 topics to be discussed to help us prepare a proposal to be submitted to CC:DA in May 2012. Please discuss each topic in the area designated for discussion on that topic. Randall, 3/29/12

Topic 1: Type 1 vs. Type 2

What are the differences between these?

Note that Type 1 calls for subordinate entry without exception. But with Type 2, entry is subordinate if the parent is not somehow identified (e.g., "Public Relations Office" becomes "Seattle Art Museum. Public Relations Office"), but entry is direct if the parent is identified in some way (e.g., "ACS Office of Statistical Services" is entered directly).

Is there a need to continue the distinction, and if so, should it be clarified?

And of course any one body has the potential to be formulated in any of these ways, depending on how the name was presented in the resource.

DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 1

It's quite possible that I just am not looking in the right place, but I wasn't able to find examples in RDA with "Office" in Type 1, but did in Type 2. The LCPS for RDA also treats "Office" as Type 2. In any event, when looking over the examples Kevin gave of apparent Type 2 contradictions and inconsistencies, it simply doesn't make sense to me to treat "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" as Type 2 and "American Library Association. Committee on Accreditation" as Type 1. They are both committees, after all. I think it would be quite difficult to know for certain that "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" is the actual name of the committee. The actual name could very well be "Committee on Minority Concerns" but just shows up as "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" on the resource. It is also really hard (for me anyway) to come up with an example of an organization with the word "Office" in it that is a true stand-alone body; that is, not subordinate to another body. Take a look at n77013440. The heading "Office belge de l'économie et de l'agriculture" is a 110, with a 410 of "Belgium. $b Office belge de l'économie et de l'agriculture". Since "Belge" appears in the name of the office, it's a type 2 ... but it is still subordinate to a jurisdiction. Would it be such a bad thing to discontinue the distinction between "bodies that are always subordinate" and "bodies that are subordinate if the parent is not identified"? Type 1 and Type 2 bodies are all subordinate to a parent body of some sort. BM 4/2/2012

Sorry that I made a significant mistake in reading some of my notes. (I removed what had been the second sentence in the topic above, which talked about the word "office" being included in Type 1 in RDA; I was wrong...) But that still leaves the main question: What is the difference? To my mind, something that is "administratively subordinate" is by its very nature "part of another body". Or is there something I'm missing? While it is possible to have entirely independent bodies with names containing terms mentioned in either of these types (including "Office"), they are not very common, and no fiddling around with these rules would change the fact that those independent bodies would by necessity have their names entered directly! If we discontinue the distinction, and combine these two types, we would end up with something like the following names (examples under the word "but" in Type 2):

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Subcommittee on Renewable Energy

(not: NARUC Subcommittee on Renewable Energy)

United Methodist Church (U.S.). Board of Higher Education and Ministry. National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education

OR:

United Methodist Church (U.S.). National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education

(not: National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education)

University of Wisconsin--Madison. Campus Planning Committee

(not: UW-Madison Campus Planning Committee)

King County (Wash.). Cultural Development Authority

(not: Cultural Development Authority of King County)

Honolulu (Hawaii). Committee on Aging

(not: Honolulu Committee on Aging)

Queensland. Parks and Wildlife Service

(not: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service)

Ontario. Royal Commission on Education in Ontario

(not: Royal Commission on Education in Ontario)

Snohomish County (Wash.). Office of Community Planning

(not: Snohomish County Office of Community Planning)

United States. Census Bureau

(not: U.S. Census Bureau)

Vancouver (B.C.). School Board

(not: Vancouver School Board)

Call me weird, but I like some of these a lot better (especially the government agency ones).

Does this go against the principle of representation? Do we want more subordinate entry, or less? Is it worth having more subordinate entry (thus violating the principle of representation) if that also gives us more apparent consistency? Please look at the discussion under the header "11.2.2.14 Type 6" below. Randall, 4/3/12; edited 4/5/12

Actually, Kevin, I like the examples you've given better than the originals, so I guess I'm weird too. :-) However, if the principle of representation is considered bedrock, then what you and I have been discussing would appear to run counter to that. If a resource has "ALA Committee on Minority Concerns" on it, we probably shouldn't be gainsaying it ("is this REALLY the way this committee presents itself?"). I work with so many government agency names and congressional committees and subcommittees that are always subordinate bodies that I may well have a bit of a blind spot. I still don't think the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is always clearcut--what's the difference between "Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service" (no2002003983) and "Tasmania. Parks and Wildlife Service" (no2003021214)? How would one know that the Parks and Wildlife Service in Queensland has "Queensland" as an inherent part of the name but "Tasmania" is not an inherent part of its "Parks and Wildlife Service" name? I have no idea why these two very similar Australian bodies have been established the way they have. That's why my gut reaction is to perhaps impose a foolish consistency by making more entries subordinate. BM 4/10/12

Topic 2: Principle of Continuity

John Attig brought this up at Midwinter. For example, "Agricultural Experiment Station of Auburn University" vs. "Agricultural Experiment Station" and "Auburn University" appearing adjacent or on two lines, etc. Is this anything that we want to discuss? I don't know if this is really a "principle" but more of a "problem". Or, it's the "Principle of Taking the First Most Prominent Form You Find Even Though It's Totally Arbitrary Because the Body Doesn't Really See Any Difference In the Various Ways They Present Their Name".

DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 2

I tend to agree with this issue as being the "Principle of Taking the First Most Prominent Form You Find Even Though It's Totally Arbitrary Because the Body Doesn't Really See Any Difference In the Various Ways They Present Their Name". The difference in the way the name of the ag experiment station at Auburn looks in the two examples might just be due to someone in the university publications department thinking the name looked nicer split between two lines, or needing to save space by putting the name on one line, as opposed to thinking that the name should be the same format on all its publications. (Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.) BM 4/10/12

Topic 3: How much should we be concerned with collocation?

John Attig said that we probably still value collocation. But how much is desired? How much is possible? Should we rely primarily on variant access points to achieve collocation? (Hopefully with better systems...)

DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 3

While collocation can still be valuable, I don't know how much evidence there is that patrons browse catalog entries very often, especially for corporate body names. Variant access points could be a way to achieve collocation if the changes that this TF (and other TFs) have recommended mean that there is less collocation. BM 4/2/2012

Interesting point about the possibility that users don't browse headings very much. I wonder if that's because browseable headings typically aren't a feature of result sets for keyword searches? Let's look into the literature to see what's been written about in regard to corporate name headings and user search behavior. Even when keyword searching does give browseable headings, perhaps the ability to specify terms that show up regardless of their adjacency can allow for lists that are manageable enough that traditional hierarchical heading construction doesn't matter as much. Randall 4/5/12

We do not have access to Library Literature in any online databases here so I can't really do a literature search, and I don't know that there is time for that anyway. As a (totally unscientific) experiment, I searched our catalog using a very common query here--"what hearings do you have from the Senate Finance Committee [or any other committee] from 2009 [or any other date] to the present?" Doing a keyword search in the author field in our ILS of "senate finance committee" and limiting the date to 2009 to 2012 results in 52 hits--the majority are hearings, but some are committee prints. In any event, there is a manageable group to choose from, without having to know exactly how the committee name is constructed. However, browsing the author field for "senate finance committee" results in zero hits. In my experience, users (patrons and reference librarians) don't tend to think in hierarchies (United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance), and at least in our catalog, browsing by author means you have to know the exact way a name is constructed in order to get hits. Browsing a catalog by the name of a corporate body is a very poor way to find resources by the body in pretty much any catalog I have used even if I know the exact name of the body, because of the sheer number of records that come up in a catalog of any size. Again, completely unscientific but it's my experience. Unless I am proven wrong, I still believe that patrons do not browse catalogs by the name of corporate bodies, if for no other reason than they have no idea how the name is constructed. BM 4/10/12

I dinked around on Google and found an article in JASIS in 1996 entitled 'Why are online catalogs still hard to use?' by Christine L. Borgman. Here are a couple of quotes: "Formulating author and title queries is difficult because the searcher must have accurate information that matches the entry in the catalog or know how to identify alternative forms that might exists" (p. 496); "Searchers need to know whether they can enter the catalog only under the search terms corresponding to the first significant word in the access point or whether all words are searchable. If only the first word is searchable, searchers must be able to determine which word that might be ... determining the appropriate search terms for corporate authors is even more difficult" (p. 497). This article seems to bear out my thought that browsing author fields by corporate name is difficult for patrons, since they have no idea how the names are constructed so have no idea which word to put in the box first. BM 4/11/12

Topic 4: Eliminating Type 6

Discussion in Dallas showed strong supporting for the elimination of Type 6, although some people supporting it were not necessarily happy with all of the results. For example: "St. John's College Library". If this name needed to be distinguished from another St. John's College Library, what would be the qualifying element? Would it be the immediate parent body:

St. John's College Library (St. John's College (University of Oxford))

Then there are things like "Meeting of ...", "Annual conference of ...", etc. Do we want to expand the scope of Type 1 and/or Type 2 to include such terms?

Is it possible that while eliminating Type 6 will both simplify things for the cataloger and get rid of some inconsistencies, we would really just be trading those old inconsistencies for new ones? (See the discussion under Type 1 vs. Type 2.)

DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 4

In the example given, it would seem to me that "Saint John's College Library (Saint John's College (University of Oxford))" would make sense, even if it might not look too elegant. I think that Type 6 is quite problematic and should be eliminated if possible, but I do recognize that it could create issues in the other types. I don't know that it is possible to eliminate all inconsistencies in these rules; Type 6, however, seems to cause the most difficulties in terms of heading construction and it would be nice not to have to contend with it. BM 4/11/12

Topic 5: Religious subordinate bodies

Bob Maxwell has advocated incorporating religious subordinate bodies into the generic guidelines. While this might be doable, I would like to see someone come up with an idea of how this might be accomplished. One thing I was struck by (and not in a positive way) was the lack of hierarchical consistency in 11.2.2.13-11.2.2.31. Essentially, this entire span of rules covers "subordinate and related bodies". To make more sense, the end of section 11.2.2 should be 11.2.2.12 (Transliteration); the next section would be 11.2.3 (Subordinate and Related Bodies), which would incorporate all of what is now in 11.2.2.13-11.2.2.31; and that section would be followed by 11.2.4 (Variant Name for the Corporate Body). I'm not sure of the status of 6JSC/ALA/2 (the proposal for revising 11.2.2.21 for heads of state) so I'm going to run this matter by John Attig to get his take on it. I don't think a total reworking like I suggest above is possible in our short time frame (we need to have a proposal by mid-May), but I think we can certainly take care of the initial thing we were wanting to do, which is streamline the generic and government subordinate bodies. I am convinced that other sections can (and should) be further streamlined and consolidated, including (and especially?) the religious officials; some of the guidelines say essentially the same thing, with the examples being the only substantive difference.

DISCUSSION ON TOPIC 5

(discuss...)

11 Identifying Corporate Bodies

11.2.2.13 General Guidelines on Recording Names of Subordinate and Related Bodies

11.2.2.14 Subordinate and Related Bodies Recorded Subordinately

The two primary principles that the rule seems to be dealing with are:

1. COLLOCATION: Collocate the subordinate bodies of a parent body. This is handled by Type 1. The determining factor here is the subordination implicit in the name. Whether or not the name is distinctive in itself, or identifies the parent body, is irrelevant.

2. DISTINCTIVE NAME: Ensure that the name conveys a "non-generic identity" for the subordinate body. This is handled by Types 2-5. The determining factor here is the distinctive nature of the name, since the inclusion of some form of the parent body's name, or some other "distinctive" name, makes the subordinate body name fall outside these types.

--Randall 11/21/11

I am very uncomfortable with the footnote in the second paragraph of 11.2.2.14. Footnotes should be avoided if at all possible. In the printed version of RDA, the footnote reference in the text is on page 11-15, but the footnote itself appears at the very end of the entire 11.2.2.14 text, on page 11-19. Would it be better to include the provisions into the guidelines for the specific types to which they apply? Randall 11/22/11

I too think that the footnote should be included in the provisions. BM 12/6/11

11.2.2.14 Type 1

Type 1 (term that implies the body is part of another): Essentially the same as in 11.2.2.19, Type 1. Randall, 8/9/10

Should some non-English terms be included in the parenthetical phrase of the guideline? Randall 11/23/11

I think so--since RDA will be used in non-Anglo-American countries, some non-English terms would be a good idea. Moon 12/5/11

Should "Meeting" be included? Randall 11/23/11

Yes. Moon 12/5/11

11.2.2.14 Type 2

What does the phrase "provided that the name of the higher body or government is required for the identification of the subordinate body" in Type 2 actually mean? Most of the examples might seem to indicate that this means the name should point to the identity of the body (such as, to what larger body might this belong) not simply give the body a distinctive name. However, a couple of the "but" examples are ambiguous:

National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education

(It can be assumed that this is part of the United Methodist Church, but not with absolute certainty)

Royal Commission on Education in Ontario

(It can probably be assumed that this is an agency of Ontario; but could is it conceivable that it is an agency of Canada? What if Canada had a "Royal Commission on Education" or all of the provinces?)

It would thus appear that "identification" here does actually mean "giving the name a unique identity", not necessarily a pedigree. All of the examples of names entered under the higher body are names that could be imagined to be used by other bodies, and all of the examples of names entered directly are names that are unlikely to be used by other bodies.

--Randall 11/22/11

Are Types 1 and 2 really distinguishable? What is the difference between "a term that by definition implies that the body is part of another" and "a word that normally implies administrative subordination"? The word "office" is used in an example for Type 2, but might appear to be more like a word that fits Type 1. The treatment of these two types is very different! If there's any indication of the parent body in a name being considered for Type 2, then the name is excluded from that category; if that same name were being considered for Type 1, it would be entered subordinately regardless. Randall 11/23/11

Should some non-English terms be included in the parenthetical phrase of the guideline? Randall 11/23/11

I think so--since RDA will be used in non-Anglo-American countries, some non-English terms would be a good idea. Moon 12/5/11

11.2.2.14 Type 3

Type 3 (general name, or name indicating geographic, etc. subdivision): Essentially the same as in 11.2.2.19, Type 3. Randall, 8/9/10

The example "Research and Training Institute" should be changed. The only NACO instance of this name is "Research and Training Institute (Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for Aged)"; the Institute is represented on the web as being a part of the Center. There also appears to be a "Research and Training Institute" located in Mpwapwa, Tanzania. Randall 11/23/11

Agreed, and the record that has the "Research and Training Institute" in Mpwapwa, Tanzania is a pre-AACR2 record, to boot. BM 12/6/11

11.2.2.14 Type 4

Type 4 (name not conveying idea of corporate body): ALMOST the same as in 11.2.2.19, Type 4. For govt bodies, adds "and does not contain the name of the government" (i.e., there's nothing in the non-govt rule about the name of the parent body). Randall, 8/9/10

11.2.2.14 Type 5

11.2.2.14 Type 6

Type 6 (name includes entire name of the higher or related body): No parallel rule in 11.2.2.19. This seems to be the most glaring difference between the non-govt and govt rules. Randall, 8/9/10

It is not clear what principle Type 6 would be in service of. It certainly can't be the principle of distinctive name, because a name being considered under this type is already distinctive. It would seem that the principle of collocation is the point, but it works only half-heartedly: subordination of the name is an accident of the way the parent body's name appears. Maybe we can sort of deal with something like "University of Chicago. Law School" vs. "Harvard Law School"; it's conceivable (but how probable?) users might be able to grasp the difference. But what about "Acoustical Society of America. Meeting" vs. "Meeting of the A.L.A." and "ALA Midwinter Meeting"?

The only principle that I can figure out is the principle of "mucking around with the name if the parent body's name appears in full". Mind you, I'm really all in favor of the types of constructions we end up with when we do that mucking around; it's just that it doesn't seem to be based on any sound principle that the users would be able to figure out, and it prevents mucking around with names that sometimes or always have a variant form of the parent body's name.

Whether or not Type 6 is applied is based entirely on how the name happens to be presented on the source(s) that the cataloger happens to using to establish the name. For some reason, I'm not really satisfied with that, although the use of references is an ameliorating factor.

--Randall 11/21/11

I've been working more on this problem of the principles behind Type 6. To see if it would be reasonable to give subordinate entry whenever the higher body's name is included, regardless of the form of that name, I played around with the "but" examples in Types 1-6. Some of the resulting constructions seemed to present no significant problems:

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Subcommittee on Renewable Energy

not NARUC Subcommittee on Renewable Energy

Queensland. Parks and Wildlife Service

not Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service

Snohomish County (Wash.). Office of Community Planning

not Snohomish County Office of Community Planning

United States. Census Bureau

not U.S. Census Bureau

(Type 2 has not followed consistently in AACR2. For example, "U.S. Census Bureau" vs. "United States. Bureau of Efficiency" (which has its only 410 as "U.S. Bureau of Efficiency") or "United States. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection", etc. However, the fact of inconsistent application in the past probably isn't an argument not to have the rule in the first place...)

University of Wisconsin--Madison. Campus Planning Committee

not UW-Madison Campus Planning Committee

Vancouver (B.C.). School Board

not Vancouver School Board

Type 4 names:

British Columbia. BC Fisheries (or: British Columbia. Fisheries)

not BC Fisheries

Canada. Multiculturalism Canada

not Multiculturalism Canada

California. Records & Information Management

not California Records & Information Management

Type 5 names:

Harvard University. Law School

not Harvard Law School

Type 6 names:

British Broadcasting Corporation. Symphony Orchestra

not BBC Symphony Orchestra

Corcoran Gallery of Art. Friends

Friends of the Corcoran

University of Colorado, Boulder. Alumni Association

not CU-Boulder Alumni Association

Would it be going too far to also consider names in adjectival form? Consider the following:

Some names cannot be put into adjectival form. We don't have "United Statesian", but instead either "American" or the noun form "United States" or "U.S." Would "State" or "Nation" (or adjectival forms of the words) be considered as nicknames for the parent body? Consider the following examples ("in case of doubt" examples in Type 3):

National Portrait Gallery (Australia)

National Health Institute (N.Z.)

Musées de l’État (Luxembourg)

Some names may not be easy to determine:

McGill Institute for the Study of Canada

(This is a Type 5 name. The body is most likely named for parent body McGill University. However, what if it were named for James McGill (namesake of the University) or another McGill, such as his wife or brother or a descendant?)

As a result of this exercise, what I have concluded is that the principle seems to be certainty (via the name of the subordinate body) of the existence of a relationship and the identity of the parent body. And I believe that the way Type 6 is written is probably the only way that this principle could be applied. I'd have to say I would have no problem resigning myself to that.

--Randall 11/22/11

If we go with a single list of types, should Type 6 be limited, e.g. something like "unless the higher or related body's name is only that of a government or jurisdiction"? Otherwise, we will end up with having to find some way to make sure we don't go back to having names such as "Vermont. University". Randall 11/22/11

There have been suggestions to get rid of Type 6, including from NLM when reviewing the Dec. 2007 draft. "NLM proposes to rewrite Type 5 to always record bodies subordinate to Universities indirectly, and to eliminate Type 6 altogether. This would simplify these instructions. KINCY, MedLA Liaison on behalf of NLM 2/10/2008" Randall 11/23/11

Bob Maxwell, in an email to this task force dated 12/5/11, stated: "I've been thinking about this a lot in the last while and I really think the only sane thing to do is eliminate 11.2.2.14 Type 6. There isn't any principle of 'certainty (via the name of the subordinate body) of the existence of a relationship and the identity of the parent body.' If there were, we would record subordinate bodies subordinately in all cases. 'Bodleian Library' gives no clue whatsoever about the existence of a parent body. If there were a principle that we need to indicate that existence through the authorized access point, the authorized access point would be 'University of Oxford. Bodleian Library.'" He gave several examples, like American Legion Auxiliary rather than American Legion. Auxiliary; Friends of the Dunedin Botanic Garden rather than Dunedin Botanic Garden. Friends, and St. John's College Library rather than St. John's College (University of Oxford). Library, and continued, "The proposed revised versions are in fact what the bodies call themselves-see the principle of representation in 0.4.3.4. They're also the forms that people would probably use when searching for them (which is the basis for why we apply the principle of representation). Type 6 only introduces artificial and unneeded manipulation of the name." I think Bob has made some really good points, especially about the principle of representation. 0.4.3.4 states: "The data describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of itself. The name or form of name designated as the preferred name for a person, family, or corporate body should be the name or form of name most commonly found in resources associated with that person, family, or corporate body, or a well-accepted name or form of name in the language and script preferred by the agency creating the data." I would tend to agree with Bob, and with the NLM proposal to eliminate type 6 completely. BM 12/6/11

11.2.2.15 Direct or Indirect Subdivision

Different from govt bodies in 11.2.2.20. For non-govt, enter under lowest unit recorded directly under its own name. But for govt bodies, enter under name of the govt unless the name has been, or is likely to be, used by another agency, in which case enter under the lowest unit in the hierarchy that will distinguish it. Randall, 8/9/10

11.2.2.16 Joint Committees, Commissions, Etc.

11.2.2.17 Conventionalized Names for State and Local Units of United States Political Parties

Should this be generalized, not limited to United States? Randall 11/23/11

11.2.2.18 General Guidelines on Recording Names of Government Bodies

11.2.2.19 Government Bodies Recorded Subordinately

Type 1 (term that implies the body is part of another): Essentially the same as in 11.2.2.14, Type 1. Randall, 8/9/10

Type 3 (general name, or name indicating geographic, etc. subdivision): Essentially the same as in 11.2.2.14, Type 3. Randall, 8/9/10

Type 4 (name not conveying idea of corporate body): ALMOST the same as in 11.2.2.14, Type 4. For govt bodies, adds "and does not contain the name of the government" (i.e., there's nothing in the non-govt rule about the name of the parent body). Randall, 8/9/10

Types 5-11: No parallels in 11.2.2.14. Randall, 8/9/10

There is no parallel to Type 6 (name includes entire name of the higher or related body) in 11.2.2.14. For instance, while "Agricultural Experiment Station of Auburn University" is recorded subordinately as "Auburn University. Agricultural Experiment Station", "Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service" is recorded directly. This seems to be the most glaring difference between the non-govt and govt rules. Is this something we want to change? Would it be a problem to bring them in sync? Would that mean having constructions like "Oklahoma. University" if we change 11.2.2.19, or "Agricultural Experiment Station of Auburn University" if we change 11.2.2.14? Randall, 8/9/10

According to the LCPS for 11.2.2.19, "university" is not on the list of words that imply administrative subordination; no doubt because at least here in the US, universities can be public (government entities) or private. Given that, I don't think that "University of Oklahoma" would need to be changed to "Oklahoma. University". Yes, it is a government entity but because it is a university, it wouldn't need to be recorded as a subordinate body under jurisdiction. Moon, 11/30/10

The example "Canada. Corporations Canada" is not supported by the rules. It directly contradicts a similar agency name given as an exception to Type 4, "Multiculturalism Canada". We must find a new example. (Interestingly, the Dec. 2007 draft had "Canada. Agriculture Canada" as the example, and there was a complaint; the example got changed, but the problem remained!) Randall 11/23/11

During the review of Dec. 2007 draft, along with a suggestion to combine non-govt and govt, there was a suggestion to have the guidelines for govt REFER BACK to the corresponding types in non-govt guidlines, instead of repeating them. Would that be a viable way of handling this, vs. totally merging the guidelines? Randall 11/23/11

11.2.2.20 Direct or Indirect Subdivision

Different from non-govt bodies in 11.2.2.15. For non-govt, enter under lowest unit recorded directly under its own name. But for govt bodies, enter under name of the govt unless the name has been, or is likely to be, used by another agency, in which case enter under the lowest unit in the hierarchy that will distinguish it. Randall, 8/9/10

I had a question about this in AACR2 as well as in RDA--how is one supposed to know whether the name of a subordinate body “is or is likely to be used by another agency or another body” without a lot of checking of authority records, online organization charts, or application of judgment that may be faulty? (Of course you check authority records—my point is that the instruction seems to make creating these headings more complicated than maybe it needs to be.) Might it not be more sensible, if lengthier, to include the entire hierarchy? We aren’t in a card catalog environment and there would be no guesswork involved. Also, this might be a way around that exceptional practice for US legislative subcommittees that some people objected to. If all corporate entities, government and non-government, include the entire hierarchy, then legislative bodies could as well:

United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Human Development Services. (In RDA now: United States. Office of Human Development Services.) Note: I work with US government entities all the time, and I seriously question whether “Office of Human Development Services” is so unique that it could only be part of HHS. It sounds like an HR department to me and I could see it used by numerous agencies.

University of Texas at Austin. Division of Continuing Education. Petroleum Extension Service. (In RDA now: University of Texas at Austin. Petroleum Extension Service)

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs. (In RDA now: name is the same—considered an exceptional practice)

I rethought my comment of 8/24/10 and conferred with some colleagues here and at other instititions, and I'd like to rescind my suggestion. Even though the suggestion 'works', including the entire hierarchy for these names would mean that whenever any element anywhere in the hierarchy changed, you'd have to create a new authority record. It would generate a lot more work, most likely. Moon 12/5/11

OTHER SPECIFIC RULES

11.2.2.22.3 Legislative Subcommittees of the United States Congress. Why is this an exception? Are U.S. subcommittees more likely to have conflicting names, vs. in other countries? Why not have a rule than if the name implies it's a subcommittee, then the parent committee must be included, regardless of what country we're dealing with? Randall 11/23/11

I *completely* agree with Kevin here ("Why not have a rule than if the name implies it's a subcommittee, then the parent committee must be included, regardless of what country we're dealing with?"). I work in the U.S. Senate Library, and it is of vital importance to know which committee has jurisdiction over which subcommittee. I can't imagine that it would be any different in Australia (source of the examples in 11.2.2.22.2). I can't speak for how other countries set up and name committees/subcommittees. In the U.S. Congress, subcommittee names tend to be quite specific, but not always. Right now, in the 112th Congress, there is a Subcommittee on Health in the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. If the treatment of U.S. Congress legislative subcommittees ceased to be exceptional in RDA and were treated the way other legislative subcommittees are treated in 11.2.2.22.2, you'd have "United States. Congress. House. Subcommittee on Health." That is incredibly vague; lots of committees aside from Veterans Affairs deal with health matters. What would happen if another House committee formed a Subcommittee on Health? You wouldn't know which one was which. In short, all legislative subcommittees of any legislature anywhere should include the name of the parent committee. I feel quite strongly about this. Moon 12/5/11

11.2.2.22.4 Successive Legislatures. A question on the Dec. 2007 draft talked about the use of "House" instead of "House of Representatives" in some United States examples. Instead of resolving the matter, the final version of RDA ducked the question by changing the example from "House" to "Senate". There is an example for "Australia. Parliament. House of Representatives. ..." in 11.2.2.22.2, but not for United States. Randall 11/23/11

In AACR2, 24.21B, one of the examples is "United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Select Committee on Government Organization." The LCRI for 24.21B states "Consider 'House' as the conventional name (cf. 24.3C) and use 'United States. Congress. House'". The LCPS for 11.2.2.22.1 states "Use "House" as the conventional name of the U.S. House of Representatives"--almost identical to LCRI 24.21B. If you look at the House website, you see the body refers to itself as "House" all over the place on the site, even though it isn't the official name of the body. I agree that in RDA it would be consistent to treat the U.S. House of Representatives the same way as Australia's House of Representatives. Maybe the reason for the exceptional treatment in the LCRI and LCPS is the massive amount of authority cleanup that would be involved. I'm not saying it's a justification for inconsistency, but there it is. BM 12/5/11

First Draft Revision of 11.2.2.13-11.2.2.20

This is essentially the draft that was sent out in May, but with some formatting changes, such as adding in the subheadings under the guideline headings. Does the overall structure of this draft seem workable? The revision draft was based on a preliminary RDA document, not the actual final published version, so I am going through it comparing with the print RDA. The subheadings weren't in the preliminary document; not having access to the online RDA, I'm not sure exactly what function these serve. But I'm worried now that merging the government sub-body types into 11.2.2.14 is going to complicate the structure of the online RDA product. Does anyone have something to say about this? Randall 11/22/11